Amid the debate about the behaviour of the national media, which will be renewed with the publication of the Leveson Inquiry report tomorrow, Thursday 29 November, the voice of our local newspapers in the north is interesting to hear.

Although facing very difficult times, they have largely maintained a reputation for trustworthiness in the UK's battered media world.

Recent polling carried out by Survation on behalf of the Free Speech Network, which promotes a "vibrant free press and internet" as "essential to any democracy, ensuring that government and other institutions can be held to account by its citizens", suggests the extent of this. People were asked if they found their local papers a positive or negative force in the community. Just over 40% of respondents in northern England and Scotland (coupled together for the purposes of the poll) went for 'positive', compared with just over 16% who took the opposite view.

Perhaps the papers' grounding in local communities has something to do with this; their proximity to the people and places they write about and the ease with which those people can seek clarifications and amendments when things go wrong.

Against this backdrop, as we approach Lord Leveson's day of reckoning, it is notable that our region's major publications argue that statutory regulation of the press would be a step too far. Outlining its support for a beefed up, contract-based regulation system, the Liverpool Echo spoke of this week being a 'landmark' for the paper. Its editorial on Monday explained:

We have to trust that Lord Justice Leveson – who was born in this city and received a fine education at Liverpool College – will decide against the folly of statutory regulation.

There was undoubtedly a need for the long-running Leveson Inquiry and all right-thinking people will have been horrified to have seen laid bare the appalling excesses of a small section of the national media – some of which had previously led to the shutting down of Rupert Murdoch's News of The World.

But Lord Justice Leveson must not throw the baby out with the bath water. He has to consider the damage that heavy-handed, big brother legislation could have on our society.

No statutory regime could be established to regulate just part of the national Press. In practice, hundreds of regional papers like the Echo would find themselves constrained through no fault of their own.

There does have to be regulation – but it should be independent, tough regulation founded on binding contract, not statute.

At the Manchester Evening News meanwhile, the editor Rob Irvine has been forthright in his concerns at the "alarming prospects" of politicians being given regulatory powers over a media, the job of which, he says is to be a "positive nuisance to those in power". Writing at the launch of the Free Speech Network, Irvine concluded:

It is inconceivable that any statutory regime could be established to regulate just a small section of the popular national press.

The only reason for a 'statutory backstop' would be to compel publications to join the regulatory body and to penalise those which did not join or which ignored its rules.

In practice, hundreds of innocent regional and local newspapers would inevitably find themselves swept up into a costly and onerous system of legal constraints. Newspaper websites would be similarly affected while their online competitors (other websites, bloggers and social media) would remain uncontrolled.

The industry proposals submitted to the Leveson Inquiry by Lord Black set out a tough and radical new system, not just a revamped Press Complaints Commission.

Once entered into, the system would be binding on publishers and legally enforceable against them through contract law. In practice, the independent self-regulatory system outlined, which has very broad support, would be stronger and more effective than any statutory model.

A free press isn't a nice-to-have. It's a necessity. And any state control will make a free press impossible.

And across the Pennines, Peter Barron, editor of the Northern Echo, called on journalist colleagues to be "honest enough to accept that there are very good reasons why the British press has been put on trial." But he then made a passionate defence of local papers, arguing that laws are already in place to hold excesses to account and calling for a regulatory system that supports the good work which local newspapers do:

It is my sincere view that for every rogue journalist, there are many more who care passionately about accuracy, fairness, balance, and campaigning to make things better. I have only ever worked in the regional press and our world is a million miles away from those national newsrooms were the shady practices of a minority of journalists were allowed to go unchecked.

And it is certainly the case that local newspapers, uniquely immersed in the communities they serve, make a difference in all kinds of ways. Embarrassing the government into action over tragically-long waiting times for heart bypass surgery, raising money to help build a children's hospice, presenting the case for train-building to return to the region, and - most recently - fighting to keep civil service jobs in Darlington. They are some of the campaigns which have been launched by this particular newspaper, and every other local title can point to its own crusades.

Newspapers have their faults. They make embarrassing mistakes which make editors cringe. They are sometimes totally out of order. They occasionally break the law. But they add huge value to society too.

He continued:

That freedom to investigate, expose and demand change has been hard won over centuries and giving it away would be a dangerous and disproportionate response to the recent press scandals, as serious as they have undoubtedly been.

Under a press controlled by the state, would the Daily Telegraph have been able to show us how some of our MPs were ripping us off with their fraudulent expense claims? Would Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell have got away with his pig-headed abuse of police officers simply doing their jobs? Would all kinds of political failings, sexual shenanigans, and dodgy financial dealings have been brushed under the carpet? Quite possibly.

We need a beefed-up, tougher watchdog for the press. One with more teeth than the current Press Complaints Commission, not least greater power over the prominence of corrections and apologies.

Do you agree with these voices from the north? What should future regulation of the press look like?